Chime, all
is this worthwhile being noted at http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/PostLastCall? I linked this mailthread there for the moment.
cheers,
Axel
On 27 Sep 2011, at 16:15, Chime Ogbuji wrote:
> I have an action (I couldn't find the number) to bring discussion about the post-LC comments I received for the graph store protocol document to the mailing list.
>
> The draft comment responses (which have links to the original comments) are [1] and [2] and the substantive changes requested are below
>
> == IM-1 ==
>
> There was a request to modify the protocol so that PUT with multipart form is permitted for current "PUT" and "POST" functionality. This seems like a reasonable request, (since it is an additive change) I don't think it would be a disruptive change, and I can see how this is a very likely use case / scenario.
>
> There was a question about what should be returned in scenarios where the Content-Type is not provided and the server has a routine that guesses the type by the content of the resource and the routine reports that the resource is Turtle and not RDF/XML. My inclination is to add language allowing implementations to 'sniff' out the content type if they have the means to, but to fall back to RDF/XML otherwise.
>
> == SJ-1 ==
>
> There was a request to add a requirement that ALL methods return the ETag or Last-Modified value of the current state of the resource. I think this is a bit much to request of all applications and the paragraph before 5.1 Status Codes already encourages the use of cache control headers with appropriate references
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:IM-1
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:SJ-1
>
>
> --
> Chime Ogbuji
> Sent with Sparrow
>
>
>